Two large trees missing from outside Sylvan post…
That is a massive shame. Seems unlikely to be vandals as these were pretty substantial trees.
The Dartmouth Road works proposal described “retaining trees wherever feasible, replacing any felled trees.” Weasel words that would allow them to chop down as many trees as they liked. The council don’t seem to appreciate that mature trees capture carbon at a faster rate than young trees.
IMO it’s an environmental crime to remove mature trees in such an over-developed and congested part of London.
I don’t know the details (I didn’t think they were going to be removed) but those trees did plenty of damage to the pavement, so perhaps more appropriate trees would be better for the area, and allow more light for the area and the flats.
Here are the plans from the council for this area:
Are there any trees remaining outside the Sylvan Post? The plans refer to ‘retained’ trees.
I am all for keeping mature trees. However, those seemed to me to be much closer than the recommended distance for such trees from buildings. As a general rule of thumb, roots extend outwards the same distance as the height of the trunk. This is why my neighbours’ mature oak tree has to be crowned every few years, to stop the roots reaching the houses.
No trees left. There were two and now none remain.
That is a great shame. Were they silver birches?
Hmm. Well, the two closest to the buildings are too close. The one closest to the kerb might have been okay, though.
Those were lovely trees.
The reason I live in this area now is the trees. In north London, too often there are no trees. I find British people seem to be scared of trees. Very weird.
This is such a shame. The only reason that area in front of Sylvan Post was at all nice was the trees.
There will be trees in that location. Sadly not the ones that were there - too late to save them. But there will definitely be trees in this location, and generally more trees on Dartmouth Road, after the scheme than before it. Nobody is going to get away with anything less!
Not so Forest Hill it seems.
This is a complete surprise and makes me extremely naffed off… those trees seemed quite mature and not replaceable by anything remotely comparable. On the plans it blatantly says ‘resin gravel around existing trees’… the resin thing presumably solving the pavement issue mentioned above so what the actual f…?
I’m not around FH right now as dealing with family stuff in the sticks but had I seen this happening I’d have gone into full on Swampy mode. (Showing my age)
So what can be done? Obviously the trees are gone but can the replacements be big? Like when they plant full size palm trees in places? Who can be held to account?
Compensation of some sort?
What a bunch of (insert extreme expletive of your choice here)
Is there a project manager for the project we can contact? Although I can understand there may have been a rationale for removing the trees, it’s just as likely, with Lewisham’s record for stealth destroying of trees, that it was a cock up or worse. I think we need - maybe through FHSoc - to ask why this happened and what the replacements will be. Yes, it’s too late to save these, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to just shrug our shoulders. Otherwise this will keep happening.
Mature trees can be bought. We need to make suee this happens, and we don’t just get some weedy saplings instead.
It is right that an air of calm be maintained here.
There may indeed be a rationale - were the trees diseased and possibly presenting a hazard?
If so, the project team should produce a tree surgeon’s (arborist ?) report inclusive of evidence that supports the decision.
If there has been no such report, conclusion or equivalent and some imprudent decision to fell the trees was made, there must then be some consideration given to whether a statutory offence has been committed, particularly if a Tree Protection Order or Notice was in place.
Prosecution followed by replacement with mature equivalents at no cost to the public purse may emerge as being amongst the most effective remedies.
Whilst I liked @Andy’s scorched earth pic - have the stumps been removed and if not has any one taken a picture to establish whether there is evidence of rot or disease ?
Hope this is not off topic but we were promised years ago when Forest Hill central was build that there will be trees on the opposite pavement which never materialised
I do hope they are replaced. They were beautiful trees but somehow felt not quite right for the location. That in itself isn’t a reason to cut them down, but I’m keen to see what they may be replaced with. I love the silver birches which are popping up already, but it would be great to have some complimentary planting but still with a good canopy to provide summer shade.
I wonder if we know anyone who knows the construction team who might be able to get some intel. I don’t know… maybe someone who owns a local shop. Like a sweet shop?
If it’s the ones I am thinking of, they had iron work around them, growing into the trunks.
What’s with all the pavements being covered in huge plant pots anyway?
It does raise this question - where is there a George Washington when you need one ?
During the initial consultations I collared a group of street designers and Council people and told them that I thought those trees had become oppressive and over-bearing in that tight and enclosed place. I told them that my point of view wasn’t purely as a pedestrian but, as my son’s friend was looking at buying a flat on the 1st floor, I also said that they must cut out so much natural light, which would mean that the residents of that block would probably need to turn their lights on and waste energy even during the day.
My preference was always for some smaller trees with lighter leaves and a less dense canopy.